One thing I would like to know... Do you guys think that Smith does his job well on game day?

i THINK his getting the team ready to play is as good as any Coach in the league.

The team has a major part of making a coach look good or bad on game day; but I do think that's his weakest area. Not with timeouts ect; but I'd like to see us go for it more in the red zone.

Biggest problem with that for me is when he gets 3 points instead of going for a T.d. WE OFTEN WIN BY 3. i don't like it when he announces we're going to stick with the running game because he often sticks with it too long.

To answer your question directly I think he does an average job on game day. That's his worst area and keeping the team together is his best. There are lots of NFL teams that take leads and consistently let teams come back; and many who give up leads and then come back. In those cases a win usually goes to the team that doesn't do something stupid.

I thought Harry Douglas was stupid picking up the football on the punt because he'd already looked up and seen the defense had done a good job covering. He called of his blockers; and should have just gone straight to the sidelines if he felt the need to touch it!!

+1

I think Smith does a great job with his game plan and has exhibited this over and over with his proclivity for fast starts. His problem is ad libbing. A game is a fluid situation so this is not a small problem. And the game plan isn't just scripted series of plays to start things off bu tan over arching approach as in the way a couple years back when they beat the Ravens the plan was to have a lot of wide running plays to eventually physically wear out an older and bigger defense.

To answer your question directly I think he does an average job on game day. That's his worst area and keeping the team together is his best.

I think Smitty is better than average on gameday. But I think if people watched more games, they would come to the conclusion that most coaches struggle with this. Even the best make mistakes. Smitty has made some prominent mistakes in recent years, but outside 3 or 4 games over the course of 30 or 40, I don't think you can really knock him that much. And it probably doesn't help in terms of the sheer number of close games the Falcons play more than your typical "good team" exposes these situations a lot more in Atlanta than they do elsewhere.

Spanky Ham wrote:

I can look at Tampa or Carolina and I would rather have most of their players on defense compared to Atlantas. Unfortuantely, ATL was stuck because they had to pay Ryan. It is what it is and will mean that there will be a bigger premium placed on the draft.

Paying Ryan didn't stop the Falcons from building up a good defense. It was not great drafting over the past 4 years. For example, Carolina whose draft record under GM Marty Hurney was fairly poor, but when they did hit over the years on their defensive picks, they hit big. Charles Johnson was a 3rd round pick in 2007. Greg Hardy was a sixth round pick in 2010. Luke Kuechly, Star Lotulelei (who looks like he's going to be their best DT since Kris Jenkins so far), and Jon Beason are 1st round homeruns they hit over the past 6 years. That's 5 Pro Bowl-caliber players including 1 elite player over the past 6 years.

Compared to the Bucs, who have hit on Gerald McCoy (1st/2010), Mason Foster (3rd/2011), Lavonte David (2nd/2012). We're still not sold on Adrian Clayborn (1st/2011), Da'Quan Bowers (2nd/2011), and Mark Barron (1st/2012) yet. But they did use one of their #1 picks on Darrelle Revis, and that's 1 elite player, 1 Pro Bowl DT, and 2 good LBs just in the past 4 drafts.

Has the Falcons defensive drafting been like that? The Falcons got Moore in 2009 in Round 2, Spoon in Round 1. Those are definitely the really big hits for the Falcons. Peters might finally be turning into a "plus" player as a 3rd round pick from 2010. Up til now, he has been about as good as your average 3rd round pick. Now he might be slightly better than that. But Akeem Dent and Jonathan Massaquoi have to be more than just average starters/good backups. Trufant and Alford can't just be average starters/role players, they need to be really good corners. Turning into the next Kareem Jackson or Kyle WIlson just won't cut it. They need to be better than that. Malliciah Goodman also needs to be more than a rotational player and rather needs to become a player like Antonio Smith or Ray McDonald.

You can't just expect that you can cobble together a bunch of 4, 5, and 6s (out of 10) and expect to build a strong defense. You need some 7, 8, and 9s. And not just 2 (Moore & Spoon), you need like 5 or so of them.

RobertAP wrote:

Here's how I see the NFL. It generally takes one of two things to win a Superbowl; a great defense, or a great quarterback.

No, to win a Super Bowl you need luck. 50% of it is luck i.e. just getting the right amount of breaks. The other 50% is being a good team, and to do that you need the things you pointed out.

The teams that consistently compete and win in the playoffs generally have 2 things going for them, not just 1 of 2 things: good QB play, and good defensive play. It's the ying and the yang. With good QB play, you can reliably trust that your offense will be able to score points when you need to. You want balance on offense however, as you don't want to be one-dimensional, but having a QB that win by throwing is very important. Because if you get behind, and you have Trent Dilfer or Andy Dalton at QB, you're going to struggle to win in January.

The good defense means that you can go on the road and win. Thus getting home-field advantage in the playoffs is not an essential requirement for you to have success. Ideally, that defense can defend the pass very well. Teams that have highly-ranked pass defenses tend to do better in January than those that do not. And part of that is pass rush.

RobertAP wrote:

SOMEONE is not doing their job properly. Someone should be fired.

This is what I don't understand. Why are people so quick to fire people when they aren't doing their job properly?

And what do you mean by doing their job properly? Not winning a Super Bowl. Because if we're measuring it by winning then it's hard to say that the Falcons aren't doing their job properly. They have won as many games over the last 5 years as anybody except New England. I realize that all 6 of the highest-winning organizations in that span besides Atlanta have won a Super Bowl.

I don't understand this mentality. It's like an SEC school that fires their head coach and AD every 3 years if they haven't won a National Title. It's like the school president, says, "Well you're not Nick Saban, so you clearly are doing a poor job." And it's like, there is only 1 Nick Saban. If everybody was held to the Nick Saban standard, then every coach in college football is undeserving of their job.

Pudge, I thought that I made it clear when I said that someone is not doing their job properly. Either Mike Smith isn't asking for what he needs, or Thomas Dimitroff isn't getting what Smith needs. What Smith needs (and has been needing to properly execute his style of play) is a better offensive line.

The Falcons have tried using the offense to protect the defense for as long as Smith has been here. Ever since we let Harvey Dahl walk, the offensive line has not been good at doing this. (And even then we weren't great at it.)

Some people may argue that the offensive line is just fine, but I point to our 3rd and short conversion rate from last year. It was a regular point made during the football broadcasts that Atlanta sucked on 3rd and short, and they were better off at 3rd and medium. For the way that Mike Smith wants to play ball, we need to be able to run the ball on 3rd and short and be successful. I believe that's why we brought Steven Jackson in here. But Steven Jackson isn't going to be able to fix the offensive line.

This year, we're hoping for more addition by subtraction. McClure retired, and Clabo was let go. I believe that we got a decent replacement for McClure with Konz. (we used a 2nd round pick for him) However, I don't believe that we got a good replacement for Clabo with Holmes. It's possible that I could be proven wrong over time.

One thing that I have been wanting to say, but haven't, is that I don't think that the offensive line played that much better this past weekend. When the Falcons had to pass, the offensive line looked just as bad as it had looked previously this year. When we were able to mix run and pass, the offensive line looked a LOT better. That's an advantage of having a balanced offense. If you can keep the defense guessing, you have an advantage. That's also why I want to see our offense running at full throttle all of the time, because with the weapons that we have, we should have teams playing on their heels constantly. I believe that this team would be at its absolute best running a no-huddle WCO.

It is always odd to me how everyone or, at least many, think there is an immediate addition by subtraction when someone isn't unilaterally successful. There is the rare case where it is true (Think baseball, Bobby Valentine) but before you go sending a successful coach out to pasture you have to think what are the viable options? Quite honestly, MS and TD were not our first choices when they came on board. Better lucky than good.

I think some context might be in order here

Nobody I've heard is saying Smitty is on the 'hot seat' right now. And I am saying since he DID get a playoff win, then he is 'off' the seat for at least 2-3 seasons...If injuries derail our postseason this year, and not personell or playcalling, then I am quite comfortable giving him a 'pass' for 2013.

BUt let's not fool ourselves, or give the fine people at Flowery Branch too much praise. Coming into 2012, Smith was most definitely on the hot seat. When Arthur Blank calls you out in a postseason presser after the Giants Fiasco(tm), your already 'occupying' said 'seat'...Blank made it cystal clear what was expected "a postseason WIN'. I defy anyone to tell me that had we repeated our performance in 2011 and we experienced 'SEAHAWKS FIASCO(tm)', had lost at home without being competetive: Smith's bags would have been packed and he would have been gone, period. Because that would have made it even more difficult for Blank's Stadium Steal, comng right up on the heels of e general election. There is no way in hell had we lost by a wide margin to the Seahawks, Smith would have stayed, NO. WAY.

BUt given that: I believe if we had lost in a squeeker, then....maybe...Blank would have given Smith this year..But Im not convinced. I htink the argument could be made that had we lost giving up in that fashion, with the stadium on the hook, I think Blank would have canned him. NOw, you and Pudge can disagree with me, or even go so far as to call Blank an 'idiot' for doing that, seeing as he is out all time winningest coach, but there are more then just performance issues at play. You have to factor local politics in the mix, which I dont think you guys are doing. As it stands now, the majority of the general public is still 'against' the Stadium Steal, and I cannot see how Blank and Mayor Reed's P.R. campign overcomes that (possible) loss. So something must 'be done'.

Personally, I give Smith 2-3 seasons to show me something 'more'. Let me ask a question to you and Pudge: what exactly needs to happen for Mike Smith to lose his job ( and Im talking on the field and in the office)? I told you my requirements..And Blank in 2011 told us his. Well, what is yours?

You know, I think that there are two things that could put Smith on the hot seat. #1, losing to the Patriots this week. Under Mike Smith, the Falcons have not lost back to back games. #2, having a losing season. Most of us agree that the Falcons are a team that SHOULD have a winning record this year. If we don't end up with a winning record, all bets are off.

I know that you guys don't agree with me on Smith, but I have a feeling that something is in the air... This team doesn't seem to have what it had in previous years. Blame injuries, blame the lack of talent, or blame the coaching staff... Things just seem off at this point in time. Perhaps they will get their acts together. However, I believe a lot hinges on this weekend's game. If we win, I don't think that there's any chance of Smitty being fired this year. If we lose this game, I think that Smitty will be on the hot seat.

Actually they have. Three times in 2009 they lost back to back games. It accounted for 6 of their 7 losses.

fun gus wrote:

Let me ask a question to you and Pudge: what exactly needs to happen for Mike Smith to lose his job ( and Im talking on the field and in the office)? I told you my requirements..And Blank in 2011 told us his. Well, what is yours?

If you want a very specific event or benchmark that will then result in Smith's immediate dismissal, then I can't give you that. Basically, I need to feel like this team is consistently underachieving most weeks during the course of an entire season.

Is there one single factor that will determine that? No. How much does the team win in close games, do they play with consistent effort, are his questionable game day management decisions more regular occurrences, does the style of play not fit the personnel, etc.

RobertAP wrote:

Pudge, I thought that I made it clear when I said that someone is not doing their job properly. Either Mike Smith isn't asking for what he needs, or Thomas Dimitroff isn't getting what Smith needs. What Smith needs (and has been needing to properly execute his style of play) is a better offensive line.

But by that same standard, then what coach is doing their job properly? Belichick clearly isn't doing his job properly. The Patriots did not give Tom Brady enough weapons to work with did they? Clearly someone is not doing their job properly. Don't give me that the Gronk/Hernandez thing snuck up on them. Sure it did in June. BUt they've had plenty of time since then to know that players like Donald Jones, Michael Jenkins, etc. weren't going to cut it.

The point I was trying to make with the Saban comp, was that IMO if you applied the same standards upon which you hold Mike Smith to, you would NEVER be satisfied with any coach.

Look, I too am unsatisfied with the state of the OL. But does that mean heads must roll? No.

This is something that I came to understand from living in Pittsburgh for 4 years is that a well-run football organization doesn't simply cut and run whenever they are unsatisfied. Because when you really look at the big picture, you're going to be unsatisfied most years. Belichick has left his ownership and fan base unsatisfied by that standard for 9 years. Certainly, they clearly need to make a change then right?

You hire the right people and let them do their job. And if you expect it to be done in 5 years, then you are either extremely lucky or extremely naive. As I said way back in 2008, it takes organizations basically a decade to build a Super Bowl winner.

Rich McKay didn't rebuild the abysmal Bucs organization and bring a title there until his 9th season as GM. Bill Polian was in his 9th season as GM when the Colts finally won a ring after him. Bill Parcells was hired by Bob Kraft to change the culture in NE in 1993, and it wasn't until the 9th season after that did Belichick finally succeed where Parcells had failed 5 years earlier.

An example of a team that built up in less time than that was the 2000 Ravens. Ozzie Newsome became their de facto GM in 1996, so that was his 5th year there. But the reality is that the roots of that Ravens success began in 1991 with the Browns when Newsome was hired as a scout, and they also picked up Mike Lombardi and Bill Belichick that same year. So essentially that took a decade. But even if you want to exclude that 5-yr. period in Cleveland, Newsome's quick success was greatly aided by the fact that he took a pair of 1st ballot HOFers with his first two picks in 1996 (Ogden & Lewis). Those picks alongside Jamal Lewis, Boulware, Jamie Sharper, Chris McAlister, Duane starks, alongside hits in FA like Siragusa, Sam Adams, Rod Woodson, Harry Swayne, would be more pivotal players added over the 5 years before it all coalesced into the 2000 team.

Look, I've been vocal that TD needs to do a better job. And if/when a day arrives where the Falcons drafting is that good, then I think it will result in the greater team success that all here seek. That day has yet to arrive.

But does that mean I believe TD should be fired? No. Do I think he's doing an unsatisfactory job? No. Do I think he's doing the job on a championship-caliber standard? No. But do I think he's capable of doing the job at that standard? Yes. He just needs to do it.

We may very well reach a point 2-3 years from now where my opinion on these matters is drastically different. But as of today, I don't have such an opinion. What I'm really looking forward is what TD & Co. plan to do for 2015 and beyond.

The point I was trying to make with the Saban comp, was that IMO if you applied the same standards upon which you hold Mike Smith to, you would NEVER be satisfied with any coach

Pudge your slow to understand that will always be the case here in Atlanta. Even with Coach Smith going 13-3 last year you then have people who say it's only about the playoffs. Atlanta fans has never been pleased with any head Coach always setting higher standards for what were considered weak seasons or weak playoff runs.

If we were to have lost to Seattle last year that would have been bad; but when you win your division 13-3 you get a bye week and its the same as winning a playoff game. You are then playing a team that won a playoff game.

So Mike Smith should be fired if we lose against the Patroits?? Then we'd be the laughing stock of the NFL again? Who says this team should play .500 ball? The only guy on the Offensive line I thought we could hopefully count on was Blaylock and I have no illusions that he's very good.

You give me 4 players on the O-line that are questionable and I'll show you a train wreck. I was very pleased by their run blocking Sunday....

On defense you give me two rookie corners; 2 linebackers that your not sold on; and a very questionably pass rush and over 16 games you'll see another train wreck.

Now maybe most bought into bringing Tony G. back and going to a Super Bowl, butwith Roddy hurt that's impossible. Maybe some Thought this team was a + .500team but what do you think NOW.... it doesn't matter what you thought this team was going to be; its what do you think now?? Yes we could play .500 from here out but I wouldn't bet on it!!

Only here in Atlanta would announcers say we " were 20 yards from a Super Bowl" Last year and in week 3 of the next year understand fans don't think much of the Coach??

.Blank made it cystal clear what was expected "a postseason WIN'. I defy anyone to tell me that had we repeated our performance in 2011 and we experienced 'SEAHAWKS FIASCO(tm)', had lost at home without being competetive: Smith's bags would have been packed and he would have been gone, period. Because that would have made it even more difficult for Blank's Stadium Steal, comng right up on the heels of e general election. There is no way in hell had we lost by a wide margin to the Seahawks, Smith would have stayed, NO. WAY.

I'll tell you that would make Blank a bigger football idiot than he is!! He was doing that to sell season tickets----we've never been sold out yet; he gives 500-3000 tickets to our Sponsors. Having a blackout will not bring in more people. The deal for the Stadium is now in his grasp with both churches agreeing to about 300% over market price if it was from another buyer. Oct 1, is his day to give the go ahead for 2017; we'll see if he does it?? Their must be smarter people advising him this won't be profitable. I sure he thought Super Bowl but he probably doesn't understand the ebb and flow Of NFL football seasons although he's lived them!!

So Mike Smith should be fired if we lose against the Patroits?? Then we'd be the laughing stock of the NFL again?

Cyril, I have been consistent for the past couple of years. I have said what I don't like about Smith. You are already aware of my thoughts on him.

My statement in this case wasn't that we should fire him if we lose to the Pats. I said that if we lose to the Pats, he should be on the hot seat. I think that if we lose to the Pats in the same way that we have been, (by blowing an early lead) that there will be a fire lit under Smith's butt.

Also, I want to clarify what I think, "the hot seat," means. In my opinion, the hot seat doesn't mean, "that guy is going to be fired." The hot seat means that the person in that seat is expected to do something to remedy the situation or else their job could be on the line. "The Hot Seat," and, "lighting a fire under someone's ass," are pretty much the same thing, motivation through consequence.

Pudge your slow to understand that will always be the case here in Atlanta. Even with Coach Smith going 13-3 last year you then have people who say it's only about the playoffs. Atlanta fans has never been pleased with any head Coach always setting higher standards for what were considered weak seasons or weak playoff runs.

Yeah, I guess I am in a bit of denial here Cyril. As bnb said earlier in this thread, Atlanta fans are the worst.

The Falcons are on a 5 or 6 game slide is what I keep hearing, which indicates that they are poorly coached.

You mean that over the course of nearly 90 games, there can't be a point where a team "slumps" for a few? Why are slumps so forgivable over the course of a 162-game baseball season, but seemingly unacceptable over the course of 6 years of football?

But let's be "real" here for a second and look at this 5 game slide. The Seahawks and 49ers were better football teams. Frankly, the only reason we won either game or had a chance to win either game probably had more to do with the fact that both are West Coast teams playing at 1:00 than because the Falcons were that good. The Saints are a better football team than the Falcons. Their record against us proves that. And with all our injuries, the Dolphins were an equal team with us, and playing at home and with the Falcons making 1 or 2 too many critical mistakes, one that game. The gap between the Rams and Falcons is shortened because of those injuries, and it's not like the Rams are some 5-11 team by most accounts either, they are a team with a chance to win a wildcard.

Compare Mike Smith and Tom Coughlin. Why does no one call the Giants a poorly coached team? What is the difference between them and the Falcons? Barring one of the more dramatic comebacks we've seen in recent NFL history, this is Coughlin's 10th season and it looks like it's going to be his 5th year without the Giants making the playoffs. And 8 out of those 10 years if that holds true, the Giants didn't win a playoff game.

And look at their talent they've had over the years. 28 Pro Bowls in 9 seasons, compared to 13 in 5 for Mike Smith in Atlanta. But I bet you RobertAP and the Atlanta masses don't think Coughlin deserves to be fired. Why? Because Super Bowls are magic. So magical, that they can mask the fact that the Giants have been a mediocre/above average team for 8 out of the past 10 years. Each Super Bowl makes all their 8-8 and 9-7 seasons, and all the playoff beatdowns they've suffered look way, way better than they actually are. But of course they're not poorly coached. Tom Coughlin is universally hailed as one of the 5 best coaches in the biz. Meanwhile, the Falcons are a good (and notably better) team for 4 or 5 out of the past 6 years, but they are poorly coached. Without that ring, all the 13-3 and 11-5 seasons, and tightly contested playoff games are ignored and look worse.

And don't think I believe Coughlin deserves to be fired. But the Giants have been mostly a mediocre football team for the past 15 years under Coughlin and Fassel, about as good as the Mora Era Falcons in that span. But because they've made 3 Super Bowl runs in that span, people consider them to be better than they are. I got lulled by it too, stupidly picking the Giants to win the NFC East this year despite all off-season looking at their team and seeing a very mediocre group.

I want to point out that my criticism of Mike Smith goes back to early/middle of last year, and that it is not limited to the past 5 games. Pudge, in the past, you have also been critical of Smitty's conservatism. At one point, you did side with me on some of my complaints about Smitty's game day issues. We Atlanta fans suck, or something.

The reason that Atlanta fans suck is because they are bandwagon fans. They disappear when the going gets rough. The people on this board are not those people. Fans are allowed to be disgruntled. You might not agree with them for being disgruntled, but they are still fans, and they're a lot better fans that the folks who only show up when we're winning.

Robert unless I call you by name then I'm not specifically talking about you.

Atlanta fans do suck, (in general ) and I do agree; not many on the boards but if we lose a lot there's just not much to say. We never have had a football Coach anyone liked ...... I'm in that group too, except I liked Glanville for most of his time; Reeves I liked; and then Smith.

I now watch a lot of games and see teams consistently let other teams back in games. I don't know about game day coaches; Bill B. use to go for it all the time when the facts showed he shouldn't, and they'd usually get the first down.

Then one Monday night he did it and they didn't make it; and everyone was calling it the worst decision in a decade.

This years team is just not really championship material; but I'd wait two more years before calling for Thomas D's head. I'm hoping he's now going for defense mostly, its just hard to win every year!!

Interesting you mention the NYG, P, as I have kind of felt they were a team very similar to us for a few years although if you really analyze it we are better, have been better and were clearly head to head better last year against them. There are those who measure teams purely in terms of rings and those--like Cyril and myself--who measure them as to whether they are consistently competitive week to week and year to year. I kind of think a ring or two might drop into your hat if you keep landing the playoffs which is what the Giants have done. you know, Braves or Marlins--which team would you rather follow for the last 20 years? I'm prejudiced, obviously, but I will take a Braves team that is solid night after night and year after year over a Marlins team that is absolutely putrid except for a couple years when they slip up and win it all. Just a difference in outlook, really. Did the lone SB appearance by the Falcs really make the bracketing years of mediocrity around it more palatable than the past five years where we have actual become an elite team of sorts? Not for me.

I want to point out that my criticism of Mike Smith goes back to early/middle of last year, and that it is not limited to the past 5 games. Pudge, in the past, you have also been critical of Smitty's conservatism. At one point, you did side with me on some of my complaints about Smitty's game day issues. We Atlanta fans suck, or something.

I was addressing the more "general audience" as opposed to specifically you Robert. I hear a lot more about how Smitty must go on twitter than I do here. You just happen to be the most vocal critic of Smitty on this board, and thus you are (unfairly) forced to bear the brunt of the "attack" against the "anti-Smitty" folks.

Smitty is conservative. I don't have great affinity for conservative coaches. I wish the Falcons were innovative. I wish I could turn on ESPN or NFLN and see all the talking heads there gushing about all the awesome and new things that Dirk Koetter, Smitty, & Co. are bringing to the NFL with their offense.

But it would take me about 8 seconds of researching before I discovered that despite my dislike of conservative coaches, it does get results. And frankly, I do think that Smitty's conservatism is a major reason why we are as successful as we are. Mora was also conservative too, but I think the differnece is that Smitty is actually good at getting the guys to play the style of football he wants. Mora wanted to be a conservative team, but mainly in Vick (although he's not solely to blame) had the personnel that was more suited to playing fast and loose. Reeves was conservative, but I think the drawback of Reeves was that he was too conservative. Why did he stink with Chris Calloway for so long in 1999? When it quickly became clear that the Falcons were so much better with Tim Dwight starting opposite Mathis over the 2nd half of that season. In '98, when the Falcons had the offense to run his style of play they excelled at it. In all the other years, they pretty much stunk. And what hurt Reeves was the fact that he was the GM for all those other years.

The question I had about Smitty in 2011 was whether he was too conservative for his own good, a la Reeves? Was he going to force Koetter to run the ball to Michael Turner when it was clear he was done? Did he stick with Mularkey a year too long because he didn't want to disrupt continuity or whatever or because he legitimately didn't recognize that the Falcons offense should be centered around passing the ball and Matt Ryan? I think in 2012, he definitively answered that in that he didn't handcuff Koetter nor try to build an offense around the running game any longer.

I've said it a number of times, the issue isn't coaching. It's personnel. That doesn't mean I think TD needs to lose his job, but I think people vastly have overestimated the talent of this team over the years, and thus why I believe they often hold Smitty to an unfair standard. And this is a fundamental disagreement we have Robert, because you've said time and time again that this team is uber-talented. And I think once you get past the QB, 2 WRs, and TE, this team is pretty average. Besides those 4 guys, they don't do anything else good. Their running game is average on a good day, their OL has been Bottom 10 for the past 3 years, they have a Bottom 10 pass rush, etc.

Name me a Super Bowl team that was bottom 10 at anything?! That's the issue I have, is that people seem to be ignoring these issues as if they don't matter. And it's not poor coaching why the Falcons struggle in those areas, it's because the GM has done a lackluster job at addressing those areas. If anybody should be on the hotseat, it's TD. I need to see some of these picks over the past 3 or so drafts actually turn into good players. I don't mean Thomas DeCoud good, I mean William Moore good. And I think he really needs to nail these next 2 drafts and replenish the talent on this roster with actual impact players rather than a bunch of complementary guys.

I can be patient and wait out the 2013, 2014, and 2015 seasons. But if by the end of 2015, I don't feel like this team is definitively or burgeoning on being a much more talented roster than they are today, then the GM's gotta go.

Not to slurp too much but you also suggested at the time of the JJ trade that the burn would be felt in the next few years as the roster devolved toward average or remained average due to a lack of high round picks. It was a gamble and one I think paid off but it doesn't mean that we are not still feeling the effects of that move. I thought the JJ trade was too much to give away also but I am still cool with it. Where would we be right now without the guy? I think the catch phrase was shiny hood ornament?

I just needed to say for the record I loved Leeman Bennett too; but he makes Smith look like a gunslinger. I mean with William Andrews we were going to playoffs and when he went down So did the Falcons.

Their is no doubt Thomas D. goes before Smith; first impressions are so strong its taken a while to see Thomas D. not doing all that well. Although this years draft is still up in the air......

Yes the good franchises don't panic. I'm anxious to see this line work out.

Robert Wrote:

Quote:

One thing that I have been wanting to say, but haven't, is that I don't think that the offensive line played that much better this past weekend. When the Falcons had to pass, the offensive line looked just as bad as it had looked previously this year. When we were able to mix run and pass, the offensive line looked a LOT better. That's an advantage of having a balanced offense.

I thought the line looked better the whole game because we finally had a running game. I don't think Robert is singled out unfairly; he's never liked Coach Smith to my knowledge; and when you go 13-3 and play in the Championship game and you still blame a Coach who didn't have a defense then I kinda think a guy's mind is made up!!

I do understand if one person & others think we have a Championship Team; then our outlook will be different towards the coach; if someone like me just sees to many question marks; on Offensive & Defense to predict a great year!!

Jeez beating the Patroits is far from impossible and we'd be 2-2. Not 2-10 ??

WITHOUT JULIO Matt Ryan would still be trying to learn to throw an accurate longpass. The Julio trade didn't hurt us last year and perhaps its one of the effects of this year.... I still think Thomas D. has had too many draft picks not work out even for back-ups.

It also seems to me their are a lot of injuries this year----Many Teams.

Not to slurp too much but you also suggested at the time of the JJ trade that the burn would be felt in the next few years as the roster devolved toward average or remained average due to a lack of high round picks. It was a gamble and one I think paid off but it doesn't mean that we are not still feeling the effects of that move. I thought the JJ trade was too much to give away also but I am still cool with it. Where would we be right now without the guy? I think the catch phrase was shiny hood ornament?

Yep, myself (and others) did say those things about that trade. All personnel moves have consequences, big and small. Looking signing Dunta RObinson to a $57 million contract's consequences were that we would lose Brent Grimes in 3 years and draft Trufant and Alford. Obviously if Grimes is very good in Miami and Trufant/Alford are just OK here in Atlanta over the next 2-3 years, that decision will have even longer impacting consequences.

The Jones trade meant that the Falcons drafts in 2011 and 2012 would reap little for the team. It put more presure on the mid-round picks in those years (like Dent, Holmes, Quizz, Ewing, Massaquoi, Mitchell) to turn into good players, and not just role players. It also meant that the previous draft's in 2009 and 2010 mid-round picks needed to take that next step. Owens, Sidbury, Reynolds, Peters, Mike Johnson, Hawley, Franks, etc. For the most part those things have not happened. Throw in the fact that many of our good players were getting older (Abe, Babs, Gonzo, Roddy), it meant we were headed to a point where the overall quality of this roster was on decline.

Obviously the positive for the JOnes trade, and why I "switched sides" on it, was because Jones made us "special." Teams that win the Super Bowl often have one special quality about them, something that makes them unique and better than nearly every other team. The Falcons special quality last year was their highly efficient passing attack that was coupled with Jones' ability to generate big plays. He did that in January. And that masked the other issues that plagued this team. Even now, we see Jones is leading the league in receptions and is basically playing like Megatron by carrying this offense.

TD has a chance to correct those drafting issues in 2014 and 2015 however, but he has to do a better job drafting. The Falcons essentially cannot fail to emerge from those drafts without adding 3 or more really good players on par with Spoon & Moore. And those mid-round picks also need to turn into capable if not good starters as well, and probably 3 or more them as well.

He also can't afford to miss in FA as they have done. Unfortunately, based off his needs-based draft strategy, I don't think the odds are good that the Falcons correct these issues. But I'm willing to wait and see. I've been surprised before.

Not to slurp too much but you also suggested at the time of the JJ trade that the burn would be felt in the next few years as the roster devolved toward average or remained average due to a lack of high round picks. It was a gamble and one I think paid off but it doesn't mean that we are not still feeling the effects of that move. I thought the JJ trade was too much to give away also but I am still cool with it. Where would we be right now without the guy? I think the catch phrase was shiny hood ornament?

Yep, myself (and others) did say those things about that trade. All personnel moves have consequences, big and small. Looking signing Dunta RObinson to a $57 million contract's consequences were that we would lose Brent Grimes in 3 years and draft Trufant and Alford. Obviously if Grimes is very good in Miami and Trufant/Alford are just OK here in Atlanta over the next 2-3 years, that decision will have even longer impacting consequences.

The Jones trade meant that the Falcons drafts in 2011 and 2012 would reap little for the team. It put more presure on the mid-round picks in those years (like Dent, Holmes, Quizz, Ewing, Massaquoi, Mitchell) to turn into good players, and not just role players. It also meant that the previous draft's in 2009 and 2010 mid-round picks needed to take that next step. Owens, Sidbury, Reynolds, Peters, Mike Johnson, Hawley, Franks, etc. For the most part those things have not happened. Throw in the fact that many of our good players were getting older (Abe, Babs, Gonzo, Roddy), it meant we were headed to a point where the overall quality of this roster was on decline.

Obviously the positive for the JOnes trade, and why I "switched sides" on it, was because Jones made us "special." Teams that win the Super Bowl often have one special quality about them, something that makes them unique and better than nearly every other team. The Falcons special quality last year was their highly efficient passing attack that was coupled with Jones' ability to generate big plays. He did that in January. And that masked the other issues that plagued this team. Even now, we see Jones is leading the league in receptions and is basically playing like Megatron by carrying this offense.

TD has a chance to correct those drafting issues in 2014 and 2015 however, but he has to do a better job drafting. The Falcons essentially cannot fail to emerge from those drafts without adding 3 or more really good players on par with Spoon & Moore. And those mid-round picks also need to turn into capable if not good starters as well, and probably 3 or more them as well.

He also can't afford to miss in FA as they have done. Unfortunately, based off his needs-based draft strategy, I don't think the odds are good that the Falcons correct these issues. But I'm willing to wait and see. I've been surprised before.

Be better done thusly, Pudge. Agree with the above. JJ was a bold move but I think all things considered was a good one. He's quite special and will only get better.

Julio is special. I think that much is obvious. But I'm still not 100% sold on the trade. Matt and Julio cannot win games alone. That was proven in the playoffs, and it has been true so far this year.

The Falcons were a run first team with a very conservative philosophy. The Julio trade went against that philosophy. By investing so much into a wide receiver, the Falcons are guaranteed to have the majority of their salary cap tied up in two players for the next 10 years. The whole conservative game plan should have gone out the window the moment that decision was made. However, we continue to see the offense slow down in the 2nd half of games.

That's my whole beef with this team at this point. You have a conservative, defensive minded coach, and you have the offensive talent to be an explosive powerhouse. This team, for all intents and purposes, should be the greatest show on turf 2.0. However, we have not acquired an offensive line that will allow us to do that.

The Atlanta Falcons are a team in conflict with themselves. They obviously don't know that they want to do. If they had stuck with, "the plan," then I believe that we would have done much better by now. But there is no plan any more. I think that the team is lost at this point and we see it on game day every week.

When I see coach Smith make game day decisions that I consider to be idiotic, I start to believe that perhaps, he is the reason for the conflict.

That's my whole beef with this team at this point. You have a conservative, defensive minded coach, and you have the offensive talent to be an explosive powerhouse. This team, for all intents and purposes, should be the greatest show on turf 2.0.However, we have not acquired an offensive line that will allow us to do that.

Its not just 2 people getting paid; you got to count Roddy & Tony G.

Then you throw in Mike Smith like he's been the one responsible for no line?? I wouldn't 100% agree if you blamed Thomas D.; but I believe you'd be so much closer to the truth and facts. You can look just as good if your running game is lights out; and your passing game is too. Heck if Ryan was the player he is today back in year 3 then who knows?

I think Konz will be a very good center. I think Reynolds has been improving. Most 0- linemen take longer to develop than say running backs. I mean it seems like your holding Smith accountable for being a Defensive Coordinator.

If we had a better O-line we would not be flashy. I think that's what you want!! Not to just get wins or twenty yards from a Super Bowl but I think you want us to be flashy doing it.

If we have the ball 40 minutes and opponents have it 20 I call that flashy. It won't happen this year but be ready for it again next year!!

I'm just guessing on this but if you hold the ball for 37+ minutes my guess is you win 80 % !!

you have the offensive talent to be an explosive powerhouse. This team, for all intents and purposes, should be the greatest show on turf 2.0. However, we have not acquired an offensive line that will allow us to do that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum